[WikiEN-l] Re: Lists which are sheer nonsense

Jimmy Wales wrote: Yes, even people who object to this usage often lapse into it. The term "American" is less cumbersome than "United States citizen," which accounts in part for its popularity. Other terms also exist, such as "yanks" or "gringos." However, the fact that these usages exist doesn't mean we should adopt them for Wikipedia. (I don't see anyone advocating that we call this article a "list of gringos.") The term "American" has multiple meanings, including the following: (1) pertaining to the continents of North and South America (2) pertaining specifically to the United States of America (3) supportive of the U.S. government, politically conservative, pro-war (For example, the House Un-American Activities Committee declared U.S. citizens "un-American" for various alleged political sins. and more recently you can find examples of newspaper columnists declaring U.S. peace protesters "anti-American.") As I stated previously, I don't have any personal objection to usages (1) or (2), although I do take offense when people insinuate that peace activists are anti-American. However, I think the term "United States citizen" should be preferred on Wikipedia because it is more precise than "American" and also carries less political baggage. The fact that some people object to this is not an "urban legend." I know people personally who object to it. Also, you can do a Google search and find examples of people expressing their objections. For example, here's a column from Sonoma Business magazine which criticizes the usage: http://www.sonomabusiness.com/archives/2002-04-column-gizzi.html You can disagree with this guy's reasoning, but it's not an "urban legend" to say that opinions like this exist. As for style guides, the style guide for the journal of the American Anthropological Association says, "#"America or American: For clarity use the noun United States and the adjective U.S. unless a wider region is intended": http://www.aaanet.org/pubs/style_guide.pdf In a similar vein, "Sea Power" magazine offers editorial guidelines for prospective authors, which state, "American. Use sparingly when the intent is to describe U.S. citizens, the U.S. military, etc.": http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/style_guide.php In a separate thread, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote: It's not just the Canadians. For example, I've spoken with people from Latin America who express resentment at the seeming U.S. monopoly on the term "American" and think it contributes to the U.S. tendency to treat Latin America as "our back yard" (a phrase that Ronald Reagan used when justifying U.S. military intervention in Central America). Actually, Daniel's comment demonstrates my point about the vagueness of the phrase "Americans." A "list of Americans" could include immigrants who don't have U.S. citizenship, whereas a "list of United States citizens" couldn't. Thus, "list of Americans" is so conceptually vague that it could conceivably include Mohammed Atta. He was an "immigrant" who "hadn't gotten citizenship" at the time he flew an airplane into the World Trade Center. As for the notion that "list of U.S. citizens" might offend immigrants, I find this implausible unless we assume that there's something unique in this regard about the United States. Why should "list of U.S. citizens" be any more offensive than "list of French citizens"? -- -------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts --------------------------------